Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:25:11 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> To: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> Cc: Will Andrews <will@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kde2 Makefile.kde Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0201212028110.23795-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> In-Reply-To: <20020121133854.O18609@squall.waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Will Andrews wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:37:08PM -0600, Chris Dillon wrote: > > At which point does --enable-final show a build-time improvement and > > not a degredation? 64MB? 128MB? 1GB? > > I think 256MB of memory is the minimum, but it could be 128MB. > Definitely not any less than that, however. I built kdelibs in > about 30 minutes on a P3-750 with 256MB. It usually took a dual > P3-600 with 640MB of memory twice that without --enable-final. The only reason I brought it up was because if 64MB was the minimum I was going to suggest keeping it, but it would seem 128MB is closer to a sensible minimum which is a bit much for the average system. Any chance we could use the hw.physmem or hw.usermem sysctls to get a general idea wether we should build with --enable-final or not? I know that doesn't actually determine available memory for the build but it is probably better than going just one way or the other. I can work up a patch for this if you're OK with that. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet - Available for IA32 (Intel x86) and Alpha architectures - IA64, PowerPC, UltraSPARC, and ARM architectures under development - http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.32.0201212028110.23795-100000>